DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application 18/680,882 originally filed on May 31, 2024. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 12, and 18 are independent.
Priority
This application claims priority of US Provisional Application 63/505,513, filed June 1, 2023.
Drawings
Regarding FIGS. 1 and 4, 37 CFR 1.84(a)(1), stated in part, normally requires black and white drawings. India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings. In the present case, the drawings have very faint lines. Therefore, the failure to use solid black lines render FIGS. 1 and 4 from complying with 37 CFR 1.84(a)(1).
Regarding FIGS. 3A and 3B, 37 CFR 1.84(m), stated in part, prefers the use of shading when parts are shown in perspective. In the present case, the drawings use shading in an otherwise non-perspective view that would not be of sufficient quality so that all details in the drawings are reproducible in the printed patent. Therefore, the use of shading in an otherwise non-perspective view prevents FIGS. 3A and 3B from complying with 37 CFR 1.84(m).
Claim Objections
Claims 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: typographical errors.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “an exercise machine has accesses a home screen into a connected fitness platform.” The Examiner reasonably believes this is a typographical error. One possible correction is “an exercise machine [[has]] accesses a home screen into a connected fitness platform.” Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims 19 and 20 are also objected to based on their respective dependencies to claim 18.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“a content module” in claim 1.
“a row ranking module” in claims 1-3 and 10.
“a presentation module” in claims 1 and 5-9.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
In the instant specification, modules are described in paragraph [41]: “The modules or components of the ranking system 145 can be implemented with a combination of software (e.g., executable instructions, or computer code) and hardware (e.g., at least a memory and processor). Accordingly, as used herein, in some embodiments, a component/module is a processor-implemented component/module and represents a computing device having a processor that is at least temporarily configured and/or programmed by executable instructions stored in memory to perform one or more of the functions that are described herein.”
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to “a connected fitness system” (i.e. a machine), claim 12 is directed to “a method” (i.e. a process), and claim 18 is directed to “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” (i.e. a machine), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “presenting rows of content to a user,” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Claims that require a computer may also recite a mental process, as described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations of independent…
Claim 1:
“access a database that stores available rows of content to be displayed to a user…
…determine, for each available row of content to be displayed to the user associated with the exercise machine, a likelihood that the user… selects content from the available row of content; and
assign a ranking to the available row based on the determined likelihood for the available row of content; and
…present a subset of the available rows of content to the user based on the rankings assigned to the available rows of content.”
Claim 12:
“determining, for each group of multiple different groups of exercise classes selectable by a user… a likelihood that the user… selects an exercise class from that group of exercise classes;
assigning a ranking to the group of exercise classes based on the determined likelihood; and
presenting the multiple different groups of exercise classes for selection to the user based on the assigned rankings.”
And Claim 18:
“receiving an indication that a user of an exercise machine has accesses a home screen into a connected fitness platform;
dynamically ranking a list of rows of content available to the user… and
presenting the rows of content available to the user via the home screen and based on the dynamic ranking of the list of the rows of content.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “a connected fitness system,” “a content module,” “an exercise machine,” “a row ranking module,” “a presentation module,” “a non-transitory computer-readable medium,” and “a computing system” are claimed, as these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering) and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed “presenting rows of content to a user” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g., “a connected fitness system,” “a content module,” “an exercise machine,” “a row ranking module,” “a presentation module,” “a non-transitory computer-readable medium,” and “a computing system” are claimed these are all generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements, Applicant’s specification discloses them in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a), which satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “a connected fitness system” or “a computing system” are described in paragraph [31], as follows: “any or all components depicted in the Figures described herein can be supported and/or implemented via one or more computing systems, services (e.g., cloud instances), or servers. Although not required, aspects of the various components or systems are described in the general context of computer-executable instructions, such as routines executed by a general-purpose computer, e.g., mobile device, a server computer, or personal computer. The system can be practiced with other communications, data processing, or computer system configurations, including: Internet appliances, hand-held devices, wearable devices, or mobile devices (e.g., smart phones, tablets, laptops, smart watches), all manner of cellular or mobile phones, multi-processor systems, microprocessor-based or programmable consumer electronics, set-top boxes, network PCs, mini-computers, mainframe computers, AR/VR devices, gaming devices, and the like. Indeed, the terms “computer,” "host," and "host computer," and “mobile device” and “handset” are generally used interchangeably herein and refer to any of the above devices and systems, as well as any data processor.”
The “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” is described in paragraph [29] as “implementations can include a machine-readable medium having stored thereon instructions which can be used to program a computer (or other electronic devices) to perform a process. The machine-readable medium can include, but is not limited to, floppy diskettes, optical discs, compact disc read-only memories (CD–ROMs), magneto-optical disks, ROMs, random access memories (RAMs), erasable programmable read-only memories (EPROMs), electrically erasable programmable read-only memories (EEPROMs), magnetic or optical cards, flash memory, or other types of media/machine-readable medium suitable for storing electronic instructions.” and paragraph [33] as “Aspects of the system may be stored or distributed on computer-readable media (e.g., physical and/or tangible non-transitory computer-readable storage media), including magnetically or optically readable computer discs, hard-wired or preprogrammed chips (e.g., EEPROM semiconductor chips), nanotechnology memory, or other data storage media. Indeed, computer implemented instructions, data structures, screen displays, and other data under aspects of the system may be distributed over the Internet or over other networks (including wireless networks), or they may be provided on any analog or digital network (packet switched, circuit switched, or other scheme). Portions of the system may reside on a server computer, while corresponding portions may reside on a client computer such as an exercise machine, display device, or mobile or portable device, and thus, while certain hardware platforms are described herein, aspects of the system are equally applicable to nodes on a network.”
Applicant’s claimed “a content module,” “a row ranking module,” and “a presentation module” are described in paragraph [41]: “The modules or components of the ranking system 145 can be implemented with a combination of software (e.g., executable instructions, or computer code) and hardware (e.g., at least a memory and processor). Accordingly, as used herein, in some embodiments, a component/module is a processor-implemented component/module and represents a computing device having a processor that is at least temporarily configured and/or programmed by executable instructions stored in memory to perform one or more of the functions that are described herein.”
Thes elements are all reasonably interpreted as a generic computer or components of a generic computer which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment. As such, the claimed limitations are reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more.
The Applicant also claims “an exercise machine,” which does not “amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use,” as described in MPEP 2106.05(h). The instant claims are directed to presenting content on a display, and the additional element of “an exercise machine” merely dictates where the display is positioned and what type of data it displays.
Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-11, 13-17, 19, and 20 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 9 further recites “a mobile device.” However, as established from the cited passages above, a mobile device is considered to be a generic computing device. As such, dependent claims 2-11, 13-17, 19, and 20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to independent claims 1, 12, and 18.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-12, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foley et al. (hereinafter “Foley,” US 2018/0056132) in view of Jimenez (US 2014/0208268).
Regarding claim 1, and substantially similar limitations in claim 12, Foley discloses a connected fitness system (Foley title, “exercise system and method”), comprising:
a content module that is configured to access a database that stores available rows of content to be displayed to a user associated with an exercise machine (Foley [0048], “access previously recorded classes archived in the system database”).
Foley does not teach every limitation of a row ranking module that is configured to: determine, for each available row of content to be displayed to the user associated with the exercise machine, a likelihood that the user of the exercise machine selects content from the available row of content; and assign a ranking to the available row based on the determined likelihood for the available row of content; and a presentation module that is configured to present a subset of the available rows of content to the user based on the rankings assigned to the available rows of content.
Foley does disclose showing exercise class content to users on an exercise machine (Foley [0051], “the one or more displays 104 allow the user 106 to view content relating to a selected exercise class both while working out on the exercise machine 102”). Foley does explicitly teach the limitations of a row ranking module that is configured to: determine, for each available row of content to be displayed to the user, a likelihood that the user selects content from the available row of content; and assign a ranking to the available row based on the determined likelihood for the available row of content; and a presentation module that is configured to present a subset of the available rows of content to the user based on the rankings assigned to the available rows of content.
However, Jimenez discloses a row ranking module that is configured to: determine, for each available row of content to be displayed to the user, a likelihood that the user selects content from the available row of content; and assign a ranking to the available row based on the determined likelihood for the available row of content; and a presentation module that is configured to present a subset of the available rows of content to the user based on the rankings assigned to the available rows of content (see Jimenez Fig. 3; also Jimenez [0055], “Thus, in this example, the group-based sorting component 110 has determined that the user is most likely to be interested in content from the category 302, followed by content from the category 306, and then followed by content from the category 308. Of course, while the screenshot 300 illustrates an interface in which categories are sorted in a top-to-bottom descending order based on their respective predicted interest values, it is broadly contemplated that a variety of different interfaces could be used in accordance with the techniques described herein. For instance, another interface could be ordered in a left-to-right, top-to-bottom approach, where the category with the highest predicted interest value for the user is positioned in the most predominant portion of the interface (e.g., the top-left corner) and the category with the lowest predicted interest value is positioned in the least predominant portion of the interface (e.g., the bottom-right corner).”).
Jimenez is analogous to Foley, as both are drawn to the art of graphical user interfaces. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Foley, to include a row ranking module that is configured to: determine, for each available row of content to be displayed to the user, a likelihood that the user selects content from the available row of content; and assign a ranking to the available row based on the determined likelihood for the available row of content; and a presentation module that is configured to present a subset of the available rows of content to the user based on the rankings assigned to the available rows of content, as taught by Jimenez, in order to avoid overwhelming the user with content (Jimenez [0006]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4, Foley does not teach wherein each of the available rows of content are associated with a unique row type.
However, Jimenez discloses wherein each of the available rows of content are associated with a unique row type (Jimenez [0019], “content servers may divide their hosted content items into any number of different categories.”).
Jimenez is analogous to Foley, as both are drawn to the art of graphical user interfaces. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Foley, to include wherein each of the available rows of content are associated with a unique row type, as taught by Jimenez, in order to avoid overwhelming the user with content (Jimenez [0006]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, Foley does not teach wherein the presentation module is configured to present a highest ranked row of available content at a top portion of a user interface associated with the exercise machine.
However, Jimenez discloses wherein the presentation module is configured to present a highest ranked row of available content at a top portion of a user interface associated with the exercise machine (Jimenez [0054], “the group-based sorting component 110 is configured to sort the categories within the interface in a top-to-bottom descending order, based on the respective predicted interest values for the categories.”).
Jimenez is analogous to Foley, as both are drawn to the art of graphical user interfaces. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Foley, to include wherein the presentation module is configured to present a highest ranked row of available content at a top portion of a user interface associated with the exercise machine, as taught by Jimenez, in order to avoid overwhelming the user with content (Jimenez [0006]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 6, Foley in view of Jimenez discloses wherein the presentation module presents the subset of the available rows of content to the user based on the rankings assigned to the available rows of content in response to an occurrence of an event at a user interface associated with the exercise machine (see Foley Fig. 12 and [0069], “As shown in FIGS. 12 and 13, if the user 106 selects the first tab 204 associated with featured classes, the user interface 200 may present a schedule of upcoming live or archived classes that have achieved a high ranking or other preferential (e.g., “featured”) status,” the event is the user selecting the first tab, resulting in high ranking content items to be displayed).
Regarding claim 7, Foley does not explicitly teach wherein the presentation module presents the subset of the available rows of content to the user based on the rankings assigned to the available rows via a home screen associated with the connected fitness system.
However, Jimenez discloses wherein the presentation module presents the subset of the available rows of content to the user based on the rankings assigned to the available rows via a home screen associated with the connected fitness system (see Jimenez Fig. 3, showing a home screen with ranked rows “GENRE A”, “GENRE B”, and “TOP 10”).
Jimenez is analogous to Foley, as both are drawn to the art of graphical user interfaces. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Foley, to include wherein the presentation module presents the subset of the available rows of content to the user based on the rankings assigned to the available rows via a home screen associated with the connected fitness system, as taught by Jimenez, in order to avoid overwhelming the user with content (Jimenez [0006]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8, Foley does not explicitly teach wherein the presentation module presents the subset of the available rows of content to the user based on the rankings assigned to the available rows via a display of the exercise machine.
However, Jimenez discloses wherein the presentation module presents the subset of the available rows of content to the user based on the rankings assigned to the available rows via a display of the exercise machine (Jimenez [0019], “when generating a user interface for a particular user, it may not be practical to include selections from all of the different categories on the interface. That is, assuming a particular content server has one hundred different categories of content items, it may be impractical to show selections from all of these content items on the screen at one point in time, as to do so would overload the user with information and would produce a cluttered interface that is difficult to use. As such, the content server may select a subset of categories (or algorithms) to display on the interface at one time.”).
Jimenez is analogous to Foley, as both are drawn to the art of graphical user interfaces. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Foley, to include wherein the presentation module presents the subset of the available rows of content to the user based on the rankings assigned to the available rows via a display of the exercise machine, as taught by Jimenez, in order to avoid overwhelming the user with content (Jimenez [0006]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 9, Foley in view of Jimenez discloses wherein the presentation module presents the subset of the available rows of content to the user based on the rankings assigned to the available rows via a mobile device associated with the user (Foley [0110], “Users 106 may be able to access system, account, performance, and all other data via web-based or application based interfaces for desktop and/or mobile devices”).
Regarding claim 10, Foley does not explicitly teach wherein the row ranking module is further configured to generate a new row of content based on two or more available rows of content that are assigned high rankings.
However, Jimenez discloses wherein the row ranking module is further configured to generate a new row of content based on two or more available rows of content that are assigned high rankings (Jimenez [0050], “The group-based sorting component 110 could then use the preference data from the assigned interest group, together with the historical browsing data for the user, to select and order the categories of content items presented to the user in the interface for the content server. As an example, assume that the user's historical browsing data indicates that the user has watched a total of 10 content items on the content server, and that of these 10 content items, 8 were in the "Action/Adventure" category and the remaining 2 were in the "Comedy" category. The group-based sorting component 110 could further determine, based on the preference group to which the user has been assigned, that users in this preference group that are interested in "Action/Adventure" content items are also likely to be interested in content items from the "Westerns" category,” taking into account the highest ranking categories of “Action/Adventure” and “Comedy,” the system generates new row “Westerns” for the user).
Jimenez is analogous to Foley, as both are drawn to the art of graphical user interfaces. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Foley, to include wherein the row ranking module is further configured to generate a new row of content based on two or more available rows of content that are assigned high rankings, as taught by Jimenez, in order to avoid overwhelming the user with content (Jimenez [0006]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 11, Foley in view of Jimenez discloses wherein the content within each of the available rows of content include exercise classes selectable by the user and associated with exercise activities performed by the user via the exercise machine (see Foley Fig. 20, showing selectable exercise classes displayed in rows; also Foley [0131], “J: In the exercise machine of clause I, the processor is further configured to: receive, via the network and from a server, information about a plurality of available exercise classes, the plurality of exercise classes including the exercise class; cause the first display to display the information; and receive, from the first user and via the display, an input indicating selection of the exercise class.”).
Regarding claim 16, Foley does not explicitly teach every limitation of wherein presenting the multiple different groups of exercise classes for selection to the user based on the assigned rankings includes presenting a highest ranked group of exercise classes at a top portion of a user interface associated with the exercise machine.
However, Jimenez discloses wherein presenting the multiple different groups of exercise classes for selection to the user based on the assigned rankings includes presenting a highest ranked group of exercise classes at a top portion of a user interface associated with the exercise machine (Jimenez [0051], “The group-based sorting component 110 could conduct a similar analysis for the other categories of content on the content server, and a respective predicted interest value could be calculated for each of the other categories. The group-based sorting component 110 could then render an interface for the user that includes some number of content categories, and could order these categories based on the predicted interest values calculated for each of the categories. For example, the group-based sorting component 110 could position the category with the highest predicted interest value (i.e., a predicted interest value indicating that the user is more likely to be interested in content from this category) in the most predominant position within the interface, and could position the category with the lowest predicted interest value (i.e., the predicted interest value indicating that the user is less likely to be interested in content from this category) in the least predominant position within the interface. The categories in between could be ordered in a similar fashion, based on their respective predicted interest values. Advantageously, doing so provides a more useful user interface for the user, in which the content items the user is most likely to be interested in are predominantly displayed to the user.”).
Jimenez is analogous to Foley, as both are drawn to the art of graphical user interfaces. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Foley, to include wherein presenting the multiple different groups of exercise classes for selection to the user based on the assigned rankings includes presenting a highest ranked group of exercise classes at a top portion of a user interface associated with the exercise machine, as taught by Jimenez, in order to avoid overwhelming the user with content (Jimenez [0006]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 17, Foley does not explicitly teach every limitation of wherein presenting the multiple different groups of exercise classes for selection to the user based on the assigned rankings includes presenting a highest ranked group of exercise classes within a home screen displayed by a user interface associated with the exercise machine.
However, Jimenez discloses wherein presenting the multiple different groups of exercise classes for selection to the user based on the assigned rankings includes presenting a highest ranked group of exercise classes within a home screen displayed by a user interface associated with the exercise machine (Jimenez [0051], “The group-based sorting component 110 could conduct a similar analysis for the other categories of content on the content server, and a respective predicted interest value could be calculated for each of the other categories. The group-based sorting component 110 could then render an interface for the user that includes some number of content categories, and could order these categories based on the predicted interest values calculated for each of the categories. For example, the group-based sorting component 110 could position the category with the highest predicted interest value (i.e., a predicted interest value indicating that the user is more likely to be interested in content from this category) in the most predominant position within the interface, and could position the category with the lowest predicted interest value (i.e., the predicted interest value indicating that the user is less likely to be interested in content from this category) in the least predominant position within the interface. The categories in between could be ordered in a similar fashion, based on their respective predicted interest values. Advantageously, doing so provides a more useful user interface for the user, in which the content items the user is most likely to be interested in are predominantly displayed to the user.”; see also Jimenez Fig. 3, showing a home screen with ranked rows “GENRE A”, “GENRE B”, and “TOP 10”).
Jimenez is analogous to Foley, as both are drawn to the art of graphical user interfaces. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Foley, to include wherein presenting the multiple different groups of exercise classes for selection to the user based on the assigned rankings includes presenting a highest ranked group of exercise classes within a home screen displayed by a user interface associated with the exercise machine, as taught by Jimenez, in order to avoid overwhelming the user with content (Jimenez [0006]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 18, Foley discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium whose contents, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to perform a method, the method comprising:
receiving an indication that a user of an exercise machine has accesses a home screen into a connected fitness platform (see Foley Fig. 12, showing a home screen of an exercise machine).
Foley does not teach every limitation of dynamically ranking a list of rows of content available to the user of the exercise machine; and presenting the rows of content available to the user via the home screen and based on the dynamic ranking of the list of the rows of content.
However, Jimenez discloses dynamically ranking a list of rows of content available to the user of the exercise machine; and presenting the rows of content available to the user via the home screen and based on the dynamic ranking of the list of the rows of content (see Jimenez Fig. 3; also Jimenez [0055], “Thus, in this example, the group-based sorting component 110 has determined that the user is most likely to be interested in content from the category 302, followed by content from the category 306, and then followed by content from the category 308. Of course, while the screenshot 300 illustrates an interface in which categories are sorted in a top-to-bottom descending order based on their respective predicted interest values, it is broadly contemplated that a variety of different interfaces could be used in accordance with the techniques described herein. For instance, another interface could be ordered in a left-to-right, top-to-bottom approach, where the category with the highest predicted interest value for the user is positioned in the most predominant portion of the interface (e.g., the top-left corner) and the category with the lowest predicted interest value is positioned in the least predominant portion of the interface (e.g., the bottom-right corner).”).
Jimenez is analogous to Foley, as both are drawn to the art of graphical user interfaces. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Foley, to include dynamically ranking a list of rows of content available to the user of the exercise machine; and presenting the rows of content available to the user via the home screen and based on the dynamic ranking of the list of the rows of content, as taught by Jimenez, in order to avoid overwhelming the user with content (Jimenez [0006]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 19, Foley in view of Jimenez discloses wherein the rows of content include groupings of exercise content available to the user and associated with exercise activities performed by the user via the exercise machine (see Foley Fig. 12 and [0104], “through the display 104 and/or other user interface on their exercise machine 102, users 106 may access lists, calendars, and schedules of live and recorded exercise classes available for delivery through the display 104.”).
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foley in view of Jimenez, and in further view of Yang et al. (hereinafter “Yang,” US 2022/0114481).
Regarding claim 2, and substantially similar limitations in claim 13, Foley in view of Jimenez does not teach wherein the row ranking module determines the likelihood that the user of the exercise machine selects content from the available row of content by: determine a counterfactual estimate of conversion of the available row of content; and assign the rankings to the available rows of content based on the counterfactual estimates of conversion.
However, Yang discloses wherein the row ranking module determines the likelihood that the user of the exercise machine selects content from the available row of content by: determine a counterfactual estimate of conversion of the available row of content; and assign the rankings to the available rows of content based on the counterfactual estimates of conversion (Yang [0053], “At step (7) of Alg. 1, the counterfactual feature selection module 131 sorts the feature columns in descending order with respect to the computed frequency of the changed feature columns. Module 131 then selects the top s feature columns.”).
Yang is analogous to Foley in view of Jimenez, as both are drawn to the art of recommendation systems. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Foley in view of Jimenez, to include wherein the row ranking module determines the likelihood that the user of the exercise machine selects content from the available row of content by: determine a counterfactual estimate of conversion of the available row of content; and assign the rankings to the available rows of content based on the counterfactual estimates of conversion, as taught by Yang, in order to improve the transparency, persuasiveness and trustworthiness of the system (Yang [0019]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 3, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foley in view of Jimenez and Yang, and in further view of Ravuru et al. (hereinafter “Ravuru,” US 2024/0129565).
Regarding claim 3, and substantially similar limitations in claims 14 and 20, Foley in view of Jimenez and Yang discloses wherein the row ranking module is further configured to apply a bandit model based on Thompson sampling to the rankings assigned to the available rows of content.
However, Ravuru discloses wherein the row ranking module is further configured to apply a bandit model based on Thompson sampling to the rankings assigned to the available rows of content (Ravuru [0076], “after selecting the content candidates, the category ranking module 304 can be configured to rank the category candidates. In some examples, the category ranking module 304 can be configured to rank the category candidates based on a category ranking score to optimize for an overall dwell time for a user associated with a category. As described above, the user 132 may spend a time period, for example a dwell time, in the application. For example, the time period of the dwell time may start when the user 132 clicks on the content recommendation in the application in a session. The time period of the dwell time may end when the user 132 exits the application in the session. In some examples, the category ranking score can be determined by one or more machine learning algorithms. In some examples, the one or more machine learning algorithms can include a reinforcement learning algorithm, using for example, Multi-Armed Bandit (MAB) model. MAB models are known to persons of skill in the art and will not be discussed in detail. In some examples, the one or more machine learning algorithms can include a Thompson sampling algorithm.”).
Ravuru is analogous to Foley in view of Jimenez and Yang, as both are drawn to the art of recommendation systems. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Foley in view of Jimenez and Yang, to include wherein the row ranking module is further configured to apply a bandit model based on Thompson sampling to the rankings assigned to the available rows of content, as taught by Ravuru, since it uses a known technique to improve similar methods (see Ravuru [0002], “For example, a plurality of videos (e.g., movies, TV shows, video clips, etc.) may be displayed to the user such that: multiple rows of content are displayed in an order to provide the row with the highest ranking at the top of the screen”). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foley in view of Jimenez, and in further view of Putnam et al. (hereinafter “Putnam,” US 2021/0342952).
Regarding claim 15, Foley in view of Jimenez does not teach wherein the multiple different groups of exercise classes include: a group of exercise classes associated with instructors previously selected by the user; a group of exercise classes associated with instructors new to the user; a group of exercise classes associated with musical types previously selected by the user; and a group of exercise classes popular across all users of a connected fitness platform associated with the exercise machine.
However, Putnam discloses wherein the multiple different groups of exercise classes include: a group of exercise classes associated with instructors previously selected by the user; a group of exercise classes associated with instructors new to the user; a group of exercise classes associated with musical types previously selected by the user; and a group of exercise classes popular across all users of a connected fitness platform associated with the exercise machine (Putnam [0231], “The GUI may initially list the fitness classes together as a single list. The GUI may provide several categories for the user to select in order to narrow the listing of classes. The GUI may also include one or more filters to help a user narrow down a selected listing of fitness classes to better match the user's preferences. The filter may be based on various attributes of the user and/or the fitness class including, but not limited to the exercise type, duration, skill level, instructor name, number of registered users, number of openings available, an average user score based on registered users and previous users who completed the class, injury, location, age, weight, demographic, height, gender, user rating, popularity, date and time, and scheduling availability.”; also Putnam [0286], “The user may connect to another person using a search feature integrated into the GUI. The search feature may enable the user to search for another person based on various attributes including, but not limited to their legal name, username, age, demographic, location, fitness interests, fitness goals, skill level, weight, height, gender, current injuries, injury history, and type of workout music.”).
Putnam is analogous to Foley in view of Jimenez, as both are drawn to the art of fitness devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Foley in view of Jimenez, to include wherein the multiple different groups of exercise classes include: a group of exercise classes associated with instructors previously selected by the user; a group of exercise classes associated with instructors new to the user; a group of exercise classes associated with musical types previously selected by the user; and a group of exercise classes popular across all users of a connected fitness platform associated with the exercise machine, as taught by Putnam, since it applies a known technique of filtering data to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chan et al. (US 2008/0243637) Recommendation system with cluster-based filtering of recommendations
Corbalis et al. (US 2011/0319229) Instructional displays and methods for exercise machine
Domm et al. (US 2020/0304863) User interfaces for a media browsing application
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen Alvesteffer whose telephone number is (571)272-8680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHEN ALVESTEFFER/Examiner, Art Unit 3715